ICBMcatcher call response:
Current time: 02-24-2018, 10:38 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: SovereignDirt
Last Post: Habenae Est Dominatus
Replies: 16
Views: 588

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ICBMcatcher call response:
12-18-2017, 06:00 AM
Post: #1
Tongue ICBMcatcher call response:
Having listened to this hour long segment, I wish to point out the Injuns are to be included into the groups conquered by "consensus" government.

As for anarchy being impractical, let me just state my aim in using Marc Stevens' Maddness... I mean Method.

I believe government, not just this government or that government, but all existing government, is way too big at this point in time.

How do I see fixing it?

Take away their money!

How do you do that on a personal level without ending up in a shootout/standoff barricaded in your fortified compound?

Asking questions!

I believe Marc's Method is the surest way to shrink government at the very least. I believe MM will return the fire and force of government to it's "fire place". Confined and restricted. I believe MM is how "We the people" as a whole and as "I the man" individually can retain the best of what government has to offer while keeping it out of our/my life. MM is how to "keep a republic, if you can."

Will we ever reach total anarchy? Let me point out:

Judg 17:6: "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

Judg 21:25: "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

Job 32:1: "So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes.

Prov 12:15: "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise."

Prov 21:2: "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts."

If you the reader or ICBMcatcher wants to know what anarchy looks like, look to the prisons.

Under arbitrary controls (protection), prison or jail has all the elements of an anarchist society. I give credit to the jail system for allowing me plenty of time to read the Bible and see the violent for who they really are and to see (judge) how things really work behind the illusion of government protection.

The old west. That is how it was, how it is and how it will always be. You just have to (be able to) see through the matrix. Otherwise you'll keep calling for more incompetent police protection that always arrives just alittle too late and has no target in sight except you. The one making government agents have to (pretend) to do work because you keep complaining about somebody who is an outlaw, outside their/your law.

Quit complaining and start asking questions. Start with, "what is ______(authority, freedom, money, love) and how much am I willing to give up?" Seriously look for your old line in the sand. You drew one long ago, you just forgot about it, and it became easier to forget everytime you made another exception for being controlled.

That's my rant for the ICBMcatcher segment. Thanks for reading.

PardonMEWhatsTHEemergency&howcanIhelpAmIunderARRESTbeingDETAINEDfree2goIBELIEVEimNaCUSTDIALarrestBECAU​SEimNOTfree2goifIgiveUANYTHINGwillUuseit2furtherAlegalchargeAGAINSTmeASIDEfromYO​URwillingness2useFORCEwhatfactsORevidenceDOUrelyon2proveTHATLAWapplies2me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-18-2017, 01:30 PM (This post was last modified: 12-18-2017 01:32 PM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #2
RE: ICBMcatcher call response:
Wouldn't your Argument be much, much more persuasive if you quoted (as support/proof) from The One True Book... aka The Koran?

That's my rant/i2 wish to point out...

/snarcasm

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-18-2017, 02:01 PM
Post: #3
RE: ICBMcatcher call response:
(12-18-2017 01:30 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Wouldn't your Argument be much, much more persuasive if you quoted (as support/proof) from The One True Book... aka The Koran?

That's my rant/i2 wish to point out...

/snarcasm

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ covers the koran as well as the buybull.

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-18-2017, 02:44 PM
Post: #4
RE: ICBMcatcher call response:
(12-18-2017 01:30 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Wouldn't your Argument be much, much more persuasive if you quoted (as support/proof) from The One True Book... aka The Koran?

That's my rant/i2 wish to point out...

/snarcasm

Not for those of us who defer to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Praise be to carbs!

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them."
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-18-2017, 04:20 PM
Post: #5
RE: ICBMcatcher call response:
(12-18-2017 02:44 PM)Boxer Wrote:  
(12-18-2017 01:30 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Wouldn't your Argument be much, much more persuasive if you quoted (as support/proof) from The One True Book... aka The Koran?

That's my rant/i2 wish to point out...

/snarcasm

Not for those of us who defer to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Praise be to carbs!

Odin rebuke & curse you, infidel!! Tantrum
Laughing to Death (of course i'll have to wait until you're dead & gone to say "I told you so!", aye rascal Pascal?) Sleepy

[Image: wxp.gif] At least you Pastafarians get Marc's Morality blessing --assuming that sacrificial blood spaghetti sauce is bloody vegan, of course of course... may the course be with you! (3 course? 7 course? of course?)

[cred2 for Pastafarian's not requiring Us to read long dead-lingo taught us by other mortals like us, in order to get to The Order --regardless of number of courses...]

Cool

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-19-2017, 09:15 AM
Post: #6
RE: ICBMcatcher call response:
Oh boy, Marc really let me down on this show, when he said, "We'll have you back on sometime..." to icbm.....enough Marc!.... Stop wasting time with this clown. I don't know about you, but my time is valuable to me, and this guy just isn't worth it. People really need your guidance and help, and it really perturbs me, as painful as it is, to listen to this sadly misinformed person talk down to you.

He is only mad because he said long ago that he could produce evidence and collect the 5 G's reward....But He Can't, so he is trying everything under the sun to tie you up, and your work. Screw him !

I laughed really hard though, when he told everyone how intelligent he is, and didn't want other people that weren't as smart as him to have rewards he gets...LOLOL....and how he shredded all your followers (minions) here on this forum, I guess with his superior intellect...HA HA HA......Oh well, I guess it's your show, and if you want to have a comedy show once a month or so, that's your business. I just never took you as the variety show type, but we all need a good belly laugh every now and then I suppose.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-19-2017, 11:34 AM (This post was last modified: 12-19-2017 11:36 AM by NonEntity.)
Post: #7
RE: ICBMcatcher call response:
(12-19-2017 09:15 AM)Ripsaw Wrote:  Oh boy, Marc really let me down on this show, when he said, "We'll have you back on sometime..." to icbm.....enough Marc!.... Stop wasting time with this clown. I don't know about you, but my time is valuable to me, and this guy just isn't worth it. People really need your guidance and help, and it really perturbs me, as painful as it is, to listen to this sadly misinformed person talk down to you.

He is only mad because he said long ago that he could produce evidence and collect the 5 G's reward....But He Can't, so he is trying everything under the sun to tie you up, and your work. Screw him !

I laughed really hard though, when he told everyone how intelligent he is, and didn't want other people that weren't as smart as him to have rewards he gets...LOLOL....and how he shredded all your followers (minions) here on this forum, I guess with his superior intellect...HA HA HA......Oh well, I guess it's your show, and if you want to have a comedy show once a month or so, that's your business. I just never took you as the variety show type, but we all need a good belly laugh every now and then I suppose.

I have to agree with you here, Rippy.

One of the big turning points in my life was when I learned that it was perfectly acceptable to say NO. My life is mine. I owe nothing to anyone unless i choose to accept a debt. I didn't have a Jewish or Catholic mother! Wink maybe that's the trick.


Hmm. Thought to ponder: are all religions based upon guilt?

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-19-2017, 12:44 PM (This post was last modified: 12-20-2017 07:22 AM by Habenae Est Dominatus.)
Post: #8
NSP Dec 16 and ICBMC
(12-19-2017 09:15 AM)Ripsaw Wrote:  Stop wasting time with this clown. I don't know about you, but my time is valuable to me, and this guy just isn't worth it.

DAGNABBIT RIPSAW!

Because of your post my morbid curiosity got the better of me.
I'm not sure I can even continue to listen to this idiot person.




ICBMC asked: "What evidence do you rely on to prove that do no harm applies to you or any body else?"

John Locke explained this in 1690 in his "Second Treatise of Government".

Natural law means quid pro quo. Pretty much how many of us deal with others on a daily basis. I treat you with the respect you deserve as a fellow human. I treat you as equal to me. The same way I want to be treated by you. (Sometimes, unfortunately, there are times when this is a one way treatment.)

John Locke Wrote:we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.

A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions

And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation: for the law of nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world be in vain, if there were no body that in the state of nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders. And if any one in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so: for in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do.

Simply said, if you violate me by violating my life, health, liberty, or possessions, I end you and society is better for the act.

Assuming you don't want to be ended ICBMC, do no harm does indeed apply to you whether you want it to or not.

So, Mr. Stevens, I don't agree with you as a matter of logic.
The choice as to how much defensive force is a decision for the defender to make.
Myself, I would choose reciprocal force commensurate with the attack...

The first time.

Subsequent attacks from the same attacker will have escalating force returned.



ICBMC opined: "A law is nothing but an idea or a concept"

I'll give you 1/2 point for that statement, since you didn't finish the statement.

A law is nothing but an idea or a concept resulting from people having been indoctrinated into the delusional belief that politicians have any authority over any body.



Regarding Marc's stuff, ICBMC,

It's not an opinion. It's a conclusion.

Refute the points, to refute the logic.
If you can...

(This will be good practice for you to prove you are literate.)

http://www.synapticsparks.info/government/

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-25-2017, 09:49 AM (This post was last modified: 12-25-2017 11:09 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #9
RE: ICBMcatcher call response:
(12-18-2017 02:44 PM)Boxer Wrote:  Not for those of us who defer to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Praise be to carbs!

[Image: 25855762_1349846315142678_1093356070_oFSM2-350x350.jpg]
[Image: 25855762_1349846315142678_1093356070_oFSM.jpg]¹

Let us celebrate The Blessed Virgin Olive Oile!

Ramen, ramen, and ramen!

ETA: some say this is the origin of the expression, "Season's Greetings" (where the wise men brought the herbs & spices)

Ho, ho, ho Ha, ha, ha.

nonMary ChristMass,
--NonPopeye2i
____________________
1. now---if only they'd get over the promotion of "the halls of government" as equally religious dogma in need of separation (from sanity).

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-25-2017, 11:02 AM
Post: #10
RE: ICBMcatcher call response:
(12-19-2017 12:44 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  ICBMC asked: "What evidence do you rely on to prove that do no harm applies to you or any body else?"

fwiw, i actually find this to be a valuable (as logically consistent) question, particularly in context.

My simple, sincere response would be: i'm glad you asked! There is none.
[que the : shock : emoji here, followed by the murderous rant :smilie:]
Followed with (that context being): but who in this discussion is advocating the use of since-as-an-early-age-as possible myth perpetuation, indoctrination, propaganda, manipulation, intimidation, coercion, threats of and initiation of aggression and violence, including forcing others to pay for such, as being Applicable? And where an essential part of that System is claims of requirement of Evidence as critical/crucial [and there is none for it--either]?


fwiw2, i tend to cringe when i hear appeals to "natural law" (and by extension, Locke). The crux being that animals killing is quite natural, no? Calling it "murder", not so much --except to the degree that the brains that reason (or react as) "kill" are the same ("equal"?) means to producing, as another thought, "murder"... and "govern"... and "state"... and by extension, reasoning, logic, etc. How is it not all natural, where i tend to find drawing "natural law" into of more of the fogging (illogical? unreasonable?) direction? "Vengance" killing is not "murder", it's just "killing", right? Ditto "war"?
Where's all this "in nature" again?
(of is it all in some heads? same place as opinions?)

By contrast, what's required to argue "gravity" as law/natural?
Need to see the evidence?
[jump here, levitate here, optional lol]

Might the (at)tack of pointing how all the places one's asking such a query demonstrate that they (too) value LCCENFreasoning? Did someone say evidence? (beginning with how language is just that? otherwise, why aren't they asking in gibberish instead?)

Opinion supported by evidence; imagine that?!

Quote:Regarding Marc's stuff, ICBMC,

It's not an opinion. It's a conclusion.

i'd cross examine that, contextually (at least). Context being: claims of law?

Quote:Refute the points, to refute the logic.
If you can...

Yupp, except it seems (to me) someone is claiming "logic" is "law" and somehow natural = exclusive of the other things equally natural as such law...? [walk on water here optional?]

i find it baffling, to perplexing, to mesmerizing that all We're left with, socially, is opinion. And majority rule based upon it.
The only salvation being [sic], that it's logic that gets me/Us to: it's either valuing logic, or, it's valuing anything goes [see e.g. "insanity"; see how logical most act when it comes to eating air exclusively...? (and thank doG for animal brains evolved, circa for the most part pain avoidance, to +value logical consistency)]

Granted, we're discussing all sorts of shortcuts here, with shortcuts, as shortcuts labeled (popularly?) with yet another shortcut: "words" (or is it "terms"? what's the law...?).
#harm¹?

Quote:He must meet argument with argument, and that not only for those who were without, but in order to be himself quite sure of what he [valued]. He must be able to hold it, not only in controversy with others, where pride might bid him stand fast, but in that much more serious contest within, where a man meets the old adversary alone in the secret arena of his own mind, and has to sustain that terrible hand-to-hand fight, in which he is uncheered by outward help.
—Alfred Edersheim
It you want to assert a truth, first make sure it's not just an opinion that you desperately want to be true.
—Neil deGrasse Tyson
Trust those who are seeking the truth, doubt those who find it.
—Andre Gide
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
—Yeats
He who conquers others is strong; he who conquers himself is mighty.
—Lao-tzu

_____________________________
1. is the episode wherein Marc says "abortion" violates NAP is "immoral" because it causes "harm"? factually, where's the law/moral on that? (i need to show him where he's harming plants; and heaven forbid, if he's masturbating/having wet dreams...!? Stare or will that be Ruled frivolous--naturally, of course?)

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-25-2017, 12:28 PM
Post: #11
RE: ICBMcatcher call response:
eYeToo made a post which got mangled by his brain. As a public service I've translated it below...


(12-25-2017 11:02 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  
(12-19-2017 12:44 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  ICBMC asked: "What evidence do you rely on to prove that do no harm applies to you or any body else?"

fwiw, i actually find this to be a valuable (as logically consistent) question, particularly in context.

My simple, sincere response would be: i'm glad you asked! There is none.

_____________________________
1. is the episode wherein Marc says "abortion" violates NAP is "immoral" because it causes "harm"? factually, where's the law/moral on that? (i need to show him where he's harming plants; and heaven forbid, if he's masturbating/having wet dreams...!? Stare or will that be Ruled frivolous--naturally, of course?)

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-25-2017, 05:08 PM
Post: #12
RE: ICBMcatcher call response:
(12-25-2017 12:28 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  eYeToo made a post which got mangled by his brain.
[Image: Batsignal%20%28Batman%29%20%5Bmed%5D.gif?dl=0]
Wow. That's some awesome super-cyber-power i've got; make a post, mangle it by my brain. Awesome. Move over, Batman.

whichcraft?

[Image: Batman%20cape%20wavin%27%20%26%20bats.gif?dl=0] nah, batshit crayzE!
--NoPubicService (the artist formerly known as NonCryptoeKnight2i)

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-26-2017, 02:25 PM
Post: #13
RE: ICBMcatcher call response:
I would agree to ICBMC's question being logically consistent if it wasn't for ICBMC being a smarmy smart ass given the history he has with Marc, and many others here, and the context in which Marc's question is mimicked. Kinda like me asking Can't you read eye2, are you missing an eye or what?

Marc did say there is none and Mr. Smarmy asked again.

Suggesting an answer eye2 Wrote:but who in this discussion is advocating the use of since-as-an-early-age-as possible myth perpetuation, indoctrination, propaganda, manipulation, intimidation, coercion, threats of and initiation of aggression and violence, including forcing others to pay for such, as being Applicable? And where an essential part of that System is claims of requirement of Evidence as critical/crucial [and there is none for it--either]?

Good answer.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You may cringe at Locke's natural law, I cringe at what followed where Locke was trying the justify the kings (alleged) authority.

I neither agree, nor disagree with what you've painted regarding the connection of Locke's natural law and those calling themselves government.

The point I'm focusing on though is Quid Pro Quo. If one person violates others, then there is nothing but consensus opinion to suggest that killing the perpetrator is too strong a reaction in a No-State Anarchaeological society. The intended result being to prevent the perpetrator from repeating the violation.

As I stated, which didn't make your editorial cut:

The choice as to how much defensive force is a decision for the defender to make.
Myself, I would choose reciprocal force commensurate with the attack...

The first time.

Subsequent attacks from the same attacker will have escalating force returned.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In his book MILLION DOLLAR HABITS, Robert Ringer wrote: "Actions have consequences."

He proceeded to list the consequences of taking a swing at someone. A hit would inflict pain, possibly swelling. A miss would swoosh some air. The attempt might cause one to step back or return a punch. If there was no enmity prior to the swing, there certainly will be after.

Regardless if the action was a swing or something other, the attackee might just wait to the most opportune time to toss a wrench into the gears of the attacker's life.

As Ringer pointed out, the counter attack could come without warning, years later even. And the attacker might not even realize the counter-attack when it happens is a result of his prior and possibly forgotten initial attack.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now eye2, I take you to task for implying that I've claimed MY logic is law.

Marc's questions are basically and to the point of Prove the laws apply.

"They" can't. My point is that without proof of authority, "they" are attempting to prove a law without authority applies.

These are MY conclusions and the logical steps that brought me to them. http://www.synapticsparks.info/government/

My challenge to ICBMC to refute my logic and conclusions still stands.

I project that just like Galt and Serra the answer will be attempts at misdirection or ignoring the points completely.



(12-25-2017 11:02 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  
(12-19-2017 12:44 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  ICBMC asked: "What evidence do you rely on to prove that do no harm applies to you or any body else?"

fwiw, i actually find this to be a valuable (as logically consistent) question, particularly in context.

My simple, sincere response would be: i'm glad you asked! There is none.
[que the : shock : emoji here, followed by the murderous rant :smilie:]
Followed with (that context being): but who in this discussion is advocating the use of since-as-an-early-age-as possible myth perpetuation, indoctrination, propaganda, manipulation, intimidation, coercion, threats of and initiation of aggression and violence, including forcing others to pay for such, as being Applicable? And where an essential part of that System is claims of requirement of Evidence as critical/crucial [and there is none for it--either]?


fwiw2, i tend to cringe when i hear appeals to "natural law" (and by extension, Locke). The crux being that animals killing is quite natural, no? Calling it "murder", not so much --except to the degree that the brains that reason (or react as) "kill" are the same ("equal"?) means to producing, as another thought, "murder"... and "govern"... and "state"... and by extension, reasoning, logic, etc. How is it not all natural, where i tend to find drawing "natural law" into of more of the fogging (illogical? unreasonable?) direction? "Vengance" killing is not "murder", it's just "killing", right? Ditto "war"?
Where's all this "in nature" again?
(of is it all in some heads? same place as opinions?)

By contrast, what's required to argue "gravity" as law/natural?
Need to see the evidence?
[jump here, levitate here, optional lol]

Might the (at)tack of pointing how all the places one's asking such a query demonstrate that they (too) value LCCENFreasoning? Did someone say evidence? (beginning with how language is just that? otherwise, why aren't they asking in gibberish instead?)

Opinion supported by evidence; imagine that?!

Quote:Regarding Marc's stuff, ICBMC,

It's not an opinion. It's a conclusion.

i'd cross examine that, contextually (at least). Context being: claims of law?

Quote:Refute the points, to refute the logic.
If you can...

Yupp, except it seems (to me) someone is claiming "logic" is "law" and somehow natural = exclusive of the other things equally natural as such law...? [walk on water here optional?]

i find it baffling, to perplexing, to mesmerizing that all We're left with, socially, is opinion. And majority rule based upon it.
The only salvation being [sic], that it's logic that gets me/Us to: it's either valuing logic, or, it's valuing anything goes [see e.g. "insanity"; see how logical most act when it comes to eating air exclusively...? (and thank doG for animal brains evolved, circa for the most part pain avoidance, to +value logical consistency)]

Granted, we're discussing all sorts of shortcuts here, with shortcuts, as shortcuts labeled (popularly?) with yet another shortcut: "words" (or is it "terms"? what's the law...?).
#harm¹?

Quote:He must meet argument with argument, and that not only for those who were without, but in order to be himself quite sure of what he [valued]. He must be able to hold it, not only in controversy with others, where pride might bid him stand fast, but in that much more serious contest within, where a man meets the old adversary alone in the secret arena of his own mind, and has to sustain that terrible hand-to-hand fight, in which he is uncheered by outward help.
—Alfred Edersheim
It you want to assert a truth, first make sure it's not just an opinion that you desperately want to be true.
—Neil deGrasse Tyson
Trust those who are seeking the truth, doubt those who find it.
—Andre Gide
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
—Yeats
He who conquers others is strong; he who conquers himself is mighty.
—Lao-tzu

_____________________________
1. is the episode wherein Marc says "abortion" violates NAP is "immoral" because it causes "harm"? factually, where's the law/moral on that? (i need to show him where he's harming plants; and heaven forbid, if he's masturbating/having wet dreams...!? Stare or will that be Ruled frivolous--naturally, of course?)

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-27-2017, 07:59 AM (This post was last modified: 12-27-2017 09:18 AM by SovereignDirt.)
Post: #14
RE: ICBMcatcher call response:
I just popped in to add one more item I remember from the ICshitCatcher segment, paraphrasing because it's not important enough to sit through again:

Something like, "dumber people don't deserve the rewards of smarter people."

This is why we, collective individuals on a plane, have different "mental limits", ie: governments.

For those interested, gravity is theory, density is law... Error begets error.

The maxims of density and mental limits is demonstrated by the fact one individual can't be permanently flown, floated, fixed, required, coaxed, coerced, contracted, confined, educated, indoctrinated, or changed to stand under/understand or support the position of another, on a plane ie: level playing field. There is no requirement to move or change position, should one or more temporary occupiers of a particular position on the plane be in error. Reciprocity dictates no requirement exists to exclude movement, expansion, contraction, bending, spinning, slanting or otherwise, ie: other wise. Should an individual succeed in escaping error and floating, soaring, or standing in or on or for truth, this is of great benefit to the collective on the plane, who can make, spin, bend and form their position WITH the truth...("precept upon precept") If... Mental limits are capable of discernment between and have sight of error and truth simultaneously. Lacking capability renders the individual a dead occupied square on the plane. If discernment is governed, truth will remain out of sight. This is why I agree with ICshitCatcher on this point.

He seems to want the reward of error even though the truth is all around him.

If you are too stupid or blinded or limited, or governed...in error, you deserve what you get, error. The same goes for me. I am trying to be right, in, on and for truth. Though, error surrounds me as well. I see it and relying on precepts proven true, I attempt to cut through the error.

Who can see (judge) it?

"Those that are deceived, deserve to be."

Wow that was fun. Can't quite confuse as well as eye, but I'm working on it!

PardonMEWhatsTHEemergency&howcanIhelpAmIunderARRESTbeingDETAINEDfree2goIBELIEVEimNaCUSTDIALarrestBECAU​SEimNOTfree2goifIgiveUANYTHINGwillUuseit2furtherAlegalchargeAGAINSTmeASIDEfromYO​URwillingness2useFORCEwhatfactsORevidenceDOUrelyon2proveTHATLAWapplies2me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-27-2017, 11:05 AM
Post: #15
RE: ICBMcatcher call response:
The Darwinizer! Yess!!!

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)